Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking payment of Rs.3,51,652/- being the insured amount; Rs.99,458/- being the interest @12% p.a., from 07-06-10 to 17-10-12; Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental agony, delay and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant purchased the vehicle AP07 TL T/R 4010 and insured the same with the opposite party.  The opposite party issued the policy bearing No.71077769 and it was valid from 04-03-10 to            03-03-11.   The complainant on 04-06-10 entrusted the said vehicle to his friend Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy to go on pilgrimage along with family members.   One Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao was driver of the said vehicle.  The said Srinivasa Reddy and his family members were returning from pilgrimage.   While so on 07-10-10 at about 3.15 a.m. in between Ganganapalem-Kovvuru on Chilakaluripet-Narasaraopet road the Volvo bus bearing No.AP27W 9009 hit the said car belonging to the complainant. Due to that collision (1) Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy (2) Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao and (3) Duggireddy Gayathri d/o Srinivasa Reddy died.  In the said collision the said car got totally damaged and became useless. The said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Volvo bus driver.  The insurance policy was in force at the time of accident.  The complainant got estimates to the said vehicle at Rs.4,10,544.79 ps for repair. The complainant dropped the idea of getting the vehicle repaired as unable to bear such huge amount.  The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents in March, 2011.   The opposite party appointed a surveyor who visited the scene of offence and observed damage caused to the insured vehicle and assessed the value of scrap at Rs.50,000/-.   The complainant made frequent visits to the office of the opposite party and requested them to settle the matter.   But in vain.   On 17-05-11 the opposite party came up with a new version that the vehicle was driven by D. Srinivasa Reddy and requested the complainant to submit driving license particulars of said Srinivasa Reddy on the basis of news published in ‘Eenadu’ district edition on 08-06-10.   The statements recorded by policy clearly established that Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.  The opposite party is also liable to pay the insured amount together with interest @12% p.a.   The complainant had undergone untold misery due to the above conduct of the opposite party which amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.             

3.  The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite party under NATMAR policy No.71077769 and it was valid from 04-03-10 to 03-03-11.   Six persons were traveling in the insured car at the time of accident and thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.   The insured car met with an accident on 07-06-10 due to hit by a Volvo bus coming in the opposite direction.  The concerned police registered the said accident as Cr.No.49/2010 u/ss 337, 338 and 304 IPC against driver of the Volvo bus.   The opposite party immediately after the accident investigated the case and came to know that one D. Srinivasa Reddy was driving the insured car at the time of accident and the same was published on 08-06-10 in Eenadu district edition.   The opposite party on 17-05-11 required the complainant to produce driving license particulars of D. Srinivasa Reddy who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.  Till today the complainant has not furnished driving license particulars of the said Srinivasa Reddy.   The opposite party is ready to settle the said  claim if the complainant furnishes driving license particulars of                     D. Srinivasa Reddy.  In order to gain wrongful advantage the complainant mentioned that V. Murali Mohan Rao was driving the car at the time of accident.   The maxim ‘men can speak lies but paper could not speak lie’ is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.   The contents at para No.3 of inquest report clearly revealed that the Srinivasa Reddy was found dead in driver’s seat.   As the complainant failed to submit driving particulars of the said Srinivasa Reddy the opposite party could not settle complainant’s claim and as such the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and the complainant coined them to suit his case.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.    Exs.A-1 to A-19 and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite party respectively.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts in this case are these:

        a.  The complainant insured his vehicle with the opposite party.  b.  The insurance policy was in force at the time of accident.      c. The insured car met with accident due to hit by a Volvo bus                        coming in the opposite direction.

         d. The opposite party required the complainant to produce                       driving license particulars of Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy.

          e.  The complainant did not furnish driving license particulars                     of Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy to the opposite party.

7.   POINT No.1:-   The entire controversy rests regarding identity of the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident.   According to complainant one Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao was driving the ill-fated vehicle at the time of accident.   But according to the opposite party one Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy (deceased) was driving the vehicle.  

8.  The complainant relied on the report given to police and contended that it has to be presumed that Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao was driver at the time of accident as he was traveling in the ill-fated vehicle and relied on the inquest report of the said Murali Mohan Rao.   The opposite party on the other hand, relied on the matter published in “Eenadu daily edition” and the scene of offence Panchanama.  

9.  Ex.A-1 is copy of FIR given by Smt Duggireddy Santha Kumari             w/o Srinivasa Reddy on 07-06-10 at about 5.00 p.m.   In Ex.A-1 it was mentioned that the defacto-complainant was traveling in the ill-fated car along with her husband (deceased), mother-in-law, two children and driver Murali.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that it has to be presumed that driver alone was driving the                 ill-fated vehicle when traveling in it.   Driver Murali traveling in the               ill-fated vehicle was not disputed.  Ex.A-5 is certified copy of Inquest report of Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao wherein it was mentioned that Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao from driver seat had gone to backside due to collision as informed by the defacto-complainant Duggireddy Santha Kumari.   The said contention is having considerable force and it can be rebutted by opposite party.     

10.   The opposite party on the other hand, relied on the publication made in ‘District edition of Eenadu’.   Ex.B-2 is xerox copy of paper publication of Eenadu district edition dated 08-06-10.  In Ex.B-2 it was mentioned that Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy was driving the ill-fated vehicle.  The said paper publication amounted to hearsay evidence as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant.   The complainant filed scene of offence panchanama along with FIR, charge sheet, inquest and post mortem reports.   The relevant portion in Ex.A-7 is extracted below for better appreciation:

11.   The said averments revealed that Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao was found in between driver seat and back seat.   The said observation corroborated the contention of the opposite party that Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy was driving the vehicle at the time of accident besides the injuries mentioned in post mortem report. Ex.A-7 is certified copy of scene of offence panchanama drafted at 6.45 a.m., on 07-06-10 in Cr.No.49 of 2010 of Chilakaluripet PS while Ex.A-5 inquest report relating to Vankayala Murali Mohan Rao was drafted at 9.00 p.m.                The injuries mentioned in post mortem report relating to Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy tallied with the injuries mentioned in Ex.A-7.                     No where in Ex.A-1 the defacto complainant specifically mentioned that driver Murali was driving the ill-fated vehicle.  The contention of the opposite party that there was a lot of time for consultations and confabulations to get inquest report written as per their convenience is having considerable force in view of recitals in Ex.A-1 report given to police.  Therefore the contention of the complainant about driver Murali driving the vehicle at the time of accident cannot be accepted and the contention of the opposite party is well founded.  

12.   The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the opposite party could not settle the claim as the complainant did not give any reply to Ex.B-5.   Under those circumstances for not settling the claim the opposite party alone cannot be blamed.  No doubt there was delay in addressing Ex.B-5 to the concerned.  We therefore opine that the opposite party committed deficiency of service in seeking driving license particulars of Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy at a belated stage.   We therefore answer this point accordingly. 

13.   POINT No.2:-   In view of above findings awarding damages of Rs.10,000/- to the deficiency found supra will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly.

14.  POINT No.3:-  The opposite party in para 9 of its version mentioned that it is ready to settle the complainant’s claim even today on the complainant furnishing driving license particulars of Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy.   It is also not the case of the complainant that Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy did not possess driving license.  Under those circumstances giving a direction to the complainant to furnish driving license particulars of Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy to the opposite party within a month and the opposite party to dispose off the claim within a month thereafter will meet ends of justice.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed with the following directions:

1.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the                       complainant towards deficiency of service i.e., in sending                  Ex.B-5 (=A4) at a belated stage.

2. The complainant is directed to furnish driving license                             particulars of Duggireddy Srinivasa Reddy within a month                  from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The opposite party is directed to dispose off the claim within a                month thereafter.

4.  There is no order as to costs.  

 Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 12^th day of March, 2013.

          MEMBER                        MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For opposite party:     

                                                                            PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.